The Republic and the Idea of Parliament in 12th-Century Georgia: King Tamar and the Historic Uprising of Qutlu Arslan’s Faction

If the title of this article made you pause, you have understood correctly: our ancestors were already contemplating the creation of a parliament as early as the end of the 12th century. The genesis of modern parliamentarism is traditionally attributed to the signing of the Magna Carta between King John of England and his barons in 1215. However, the political uprising of Qutlu Arslan’s faction and their demands for a Karavi (The Tent) commenced in 1188. The concept of the Karavi was nothing less than a demand presented to the monarch for a "parliament" and the delegation of judicial power, predating the universally renowned English Magna Carta by 27 years. This article does not focus on King Tamar’s reign, which is highly revered by the author; rather, it explores the embryonic demands for a republican system that existed among Georgians at the end of the 12th century, focusing on its most fundamental pillar: "parliamentarism."

The term "Republic" (Latin: res publica — public affair) denotes a form of state governance where supreme power belongs to representative bodies elected by the citizens for a specified term. The principle of the separation of powers was not alien to humanity and existed to some extent in Republican Rome. The classical idea of the separation of powers was pioneered by John Locke (late 17th century) and Montesquieu (early 18th century). Its core premise is based on dividing state power into three fundamental branches, ensuring their distinction, mutual independence, and balance. Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède and de Montesquieu successfully isolated the judiciary as the third branch of government. He posited that every state possesses three types of power: legislative, executive, and judicial. Regarding parliament and parliamentarism, he asserted that "the legislative power should belong to the whole people, but since the people cannot directly exercise legislative power, legislative representation is necessary."

Let us now return to the late 12th century and describe the factors that preceded the uprising of Qutlu Arslan’s faction: 
Factor 1: At first glance, the Georgian state of that era was not inferior in its development to either England or France. This is evidenced by state revenues: the Georgian state treasury's income amounted to 3,750,000 gold coins. For comparison, the revenue of Arab Iraq was 2,250,000 gold coins, the English King's revenue in 1300 did not exceed 4,000,000 gold francs, and the French treasury in 1311 generated no more than 3,000,000 francs. This is a crucial factor for understanding the historical context, as a strong economy implies that the population engaged in commerce is financially independent. This means the middle class—the unentitled or the "Third Estate" of that time—decided many matters within the country;
Factor 2: During this period, the city of Tbilisi possessed a unique municipal structure, which was most visibly manifested during the last 40 years of its independent existence. According to the Arab historian Al-Fariqi, a "governance of the people (bichebi)," built upon republican principles, had been established;
Factor 3: The ideological source for Qutlu Arslan’s faction could have been Shota Rustaveli’s brilliant epic, The Knight in the Panther's Skin, the first part of which was written after the rebellion of Prince Demna in 1177–1179;

Who was Qutlu Arslan at King Tamar’s court at the end of the 12th century?
Qutlu Arslan was one of the pivotal viziers at Tamar’s court—the Mechurchletukhutsesi, or Minister of Finance. Due to his official position, he was intimately connected with commercial and financial circles and likely maintained ties with the lower social strata of the city. It can be assumed that he did not belong to the high aristocracy but was a representative of a lower (or middle) class, elevated to the rank of vizier by King George III due to his exceptional talent, ability, or merit. It must be presumed that Qutlu had extensive connections, acting as a conduit between the merchants (who held the wealth), the financial circles (those employed by these merchants or artisans), and the government (King Tamar). This effectively allowed him to represent not the high nobility, but the "Third Estate." Furthermore, in modern terms, he would have understood every nuance of what troubled businesses. Just as today the state relies on businesses paying taxes, back then, the merchants filled the king's treasury. Regardless of how authoritarian a state might be, it remains dependent on business. Unlike today’s businessmen, the financially independent individuals of that era likely developed a desire for greater political power because, even if "the king is an autocrat," it was the merchants who sustained the monarchy;

Who comprised Qutlu Arslan's faction?
As historian Ivane Javakhishvili points out, Qutlu Arslan’s political faction consisted of urban circles of low and middle social origin (i.e., "those emboldened by wealth"), as well as individuals elevated by the royal authority due to their special talents and abilities, much like Qutlu Arslan himself, who became the reliable assistants and co-conspirators of this uprising's leader. Who would these people be in modern terms? They were independent middle-class individuals who possessed enough autonomy from the state to dictate actions to the government. In a democracy, the middle class is independent and capable of changing the government through elections. Consequently, at the end of the 12th century, Qutlu Arslan's faction included individuals who achieved financial independence not through noble lineage but through "their own deeds and talents," and who subsequently desired greater political power;

What were the demands of Qutlu Arslan's faction?
The chronicler formulates the demand verbatim as follows: "He asked to pitch a tent [Karavi] in the plain of Isani and the vicinity of Saghodebeli and said: Seated therein, as managers of giving and taking, of mercy and wrath, we shall inform Tamar, the King and Queen; only then shall our decisions be fulfilled." Additionally, an unknown chronicler notes elsewhere that Qutlu Arslan's faction demanded the introduction of "some Persian custom." For a modern Georgian, these terms can be difficult to grasp, so each must be analyzed systematically;

What did the Karavi mean if the Darbazi already existed?
"He asked to pitch a tent [Karavi] in the plain of Isani and the vicinity of Saghodebeli." Before and after Qutlu Arslan’s uprising, there existed a state Darbazi—an advisory council led by the king, where the most important domestic and foreign issues were deliberated. The Darbazi was attended by state officials and high clergy. It held advisory rights and could not impose any decision upon the king. Qutlu Arslan’s faction apparently left the Darbazi intact but demanded the creation of a new, extraordinary institution—the Karavi—which the members of the Darbazi would not enter. This implies that the Karavi was to represent all significant groups or classes (including the opposition), and the king would not have the power to veto, block, or presumably dissolve its resolutions. This is akin to the concept of a Senate, or the main upper house of a parliament, which appeared much later in Europe and the rest of the world;

The modern Constitution of Georgia (Article 37) states: "Following the full restoration of Georgia’s jurisdiction over the entire territory of Georgia, the Parliament shall consist of two chambers: the Council of the Republic and the Senate. The Council of the Republic shall consist of members elected by a proportional system. The Senate shall consist of members elected in the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, the Autonomous Republic of Ajara, and other territorial units of Georgia, and five members appointed by the President of Georgia." What does this mean? The Constitution declares that once territorial integrity is restored, a bicameral parliament (upper and lower houses) will exist;

Upper Palate: Will represent the interests of territorial units (directly elected from Abkhazia, Ajara, etc.).
Lower Palate: Will be elected proportionally, likely via party lists, not on a regional basis.
Where does the idea of a bicameral parliament originate?
The democratic British Parliament has a bicameral structure, consisting of the Upper House, called the House of Lords, and the Lower House, called the House of Commons.
House of Lords: Members are not elected. It consists of Lords Spiritual (senior bishops of the Church of England), Life Peers, and hereditary peers who inherited their power. This is the Upper House.
House of Commons: In contrast, this is a democratically elected chamber consisting of 650 members chosen in single-member constituencies via direct democratic elections. This is the Lower House;

Who would have been the members of the Darbazi, or the Lower House?
Qutlu Arslan demanded the pitching of a Karavi, meaning the creation of a new venue for exercising state power. He knew the Darbazi existed but demanded a new legislative body. This is nothing other than the aforementioned structure of the upper and lower houses of parliament. One of them, the advisory body called the Darbazi, where the king could ignore advice, could be termed the Lower House. Meanwhile, Qutlu demanded the creation of an Upper House, the Karavi, similar to the modern U.S. Senate. Essentially, this meant the king's deliberative bodies would be twofold: one to offer advice, and another with which he would share power. Members of the Darbazi were mostly chosen by lineage (nobility), making them analogous to the British House of Lords;

What did "Seated therein" mean, and who were to be the members of this Georgian Senate, or Karavi?
It is significant that if the king could neither appoint nor block the members of the Karavi, these members were likely to be elected through elections or some broadly agreed-upon procedure for a specific term. This constitutes a severe limitation of royal power and a prerequisite for establishing a constitutional monarchy—a highly unique event of global significance for the 12th century. Today, this is nothing less than an echo of the Georgian Constitution: "The source of state power in Georgia is the people." In other words, the 12th-century Georgian middle class asked the monarch to grant them their share of power, effectively limiting the king's absolute authority. Today, this translates to: "The people exercise power through their representatives, as well as through referendums and other forms of direct democracy."

What did "Managers of giving and taking" mean?
If a new representative body were to be created, it had to possess specific rights. According to the chronicler, the first was being "managers of giving and taking." According to Ivane Javakhishvili—a view that should be shared—this signified legislative power. The 12th-century world was vastly different; laws were established by the king, not a parliament. Yet today, in any democracy, a parliament exists to pass laws. Accordingly, Qutlu Arslan demanded that legislative power (the adoption of laws) belong not to the king, but to the representative body—the State Karavi. Taxes, the way of life, and what constitutes the law would be determined by the Karavi, not the king. Today, this is articulated as: "The Parliament of Georgia is the supreme representative body of the country, which exercises legislative power." Furthermore, this 12th-century idea resonates with the 2016 interpretation by the Constitutional Court of Georgia: "State power is exercised based on the principle of the separation of powers. The principle of the separation of powers aims to prevent the concentration and abuse of state power." The desire of Qutlu and his faction is identical to what John Locke would later state: Parliament holds political power, which includes the right to make laws regulating and protecting property, and through which laws ensuring the public good can be enacted;

What did "Of mercy and wrath" mean?
"Mercy and wrath" referred to judicial power. This body was to make decisions regarding the appointment of individuals who would determine truth and falsehood in the king's name. In other words, the Karavi would completely control appointments within the judiciary. Following King David the Builder's reforms, the judicial institution was called the Saajo Kari (The Court of Petitions/Supreme Court). It is mentioned in the 893–918 documents of the Shiomghvime Monastery and in the Regulations of the Royal Court (14th century). As a result of David the Builder's reforms in the justice sector, the Saajo Kari was entrusted with Supreme Court functions (previously, the king himself dispensed supreme justice). This court reviewed petitions from plaintiffs dissatisfied with the decisions of lower courts. The Saajo Kari had jurisdiction over both civil and criminal cases, as well as complaints concerning abuses by feudal lords or officials. It was a permanent, collegiate judicial body whose overall activities, starting from the 1110s, were directed by the king’s premier official—the Mtsignobartukhutsesi-Chkondideli (Chancellor-Bishop of Chkondidi). On Mondays, he personally presided over the Saajo Kari, operating alongside his closest subordinate officials, and judged the cases of "orphans, widows, and the oppressed." On other days, the court operated with a different panel of judges. Consequently, it can be assumed that the position of Mtsignobartukhutsesi-Chkondideli could have become an elected office, chosen by the Karavi (Parliament). Today, this reflects Article 59 of the Constitution of Georgia: "Judicial power is independent and exercised by the Constitutional Court of Georgia and the common courts of Georgia," and more specifically Article 61, which states that "Judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the Parliament by a majority of its full composition, upon the nomination of the High Council of Justice, for a lifetime tenure." The idea of the 12th-century Karavi was precisely that it should elect the individuals responsible for determining right and wrong. Based on the separation of powers, authority is divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. According to Montesquieu, the third branch—the judiciary—poses the greatest threat to citizens' liberties due to its punitive powers. Therefore, this power should not be vested in a permanently appointed individual, but in persons elected by the people for a specific term. If the monarch previously determined truth and falsehood, the Karavi sought to take over this authority. While humanity officially saw the tripartite division of power emerge later thanks to Montesquieu, in 12th-century Georgia, there were already people demanding that those elected to the Karavi, rather than the king, dispense "mercy and wrath."

What did "We shall inform Tamar, the King and Queen; only then shall our decisions be fulfilled" mean?
Qutlu Arslan’s faction demanded the establishment of a completely new institution, the Karavi, in Isani alongside the royal residence. This body would control legislative and judicial power, while the king would retain the duty of executing their decrees. According to V. Abashmadze, the core of Qutlu Arslan’s political program was not merely the creation of a parliament-like institution, but the separation of state power and its execution by different bodies. Under Qutlu Arslan’s demands, the king would have no direct connection to the Karavi; the monarch would not attend its sessions and would possess no right to suspend its decisions. The king was solely tasked with implementing the resolutions adopted by the members of the Karavi. This perfectly mirrors the modern Constitution of Georgia, which dictates that "The Government of Georgia is the supreme body of executive power that carries out the domestic and foreign policy of the country." The monarch retained supreme status but became "accountable and responsible to the parliament, the Karavi, or the Upper House." The Upper House (Karavi) demanded the power to pass laws and appoint judges, while demanding that the king execute these laws and enforce the judicial decisions;

What did the unknown chronicler’s assessment "Some Persian custom" signify?
Tbilisi had been governed by the bichebi (the youths/commoners) for forty years until 1122. King David the Builder clashed specifically with these Tbilisi bichebi and harshly punished them after taking the city. The chronicler notes: "How can one grant the cunning minds of the bichebi..." In the 12th century, the East witnessed mass uprisings by the lower urban classes who seized power. Muslim sources refer to these people of low social standing simply as "the people," while the aristocracy and aristocratic authors looked down upon them with disgust as bichebi (youths/street guys). In the 12th century, according to Ibn al-Jawzi, the bichebi—the common people—briefly seized power in Baghdad. Was Qutlu demanding a form of self-governance? If we trace the steps, it seems likely, though this theory is also subject to criticism. It is also fascinating how much this uprising influenced Shota Rustaveli, as "this Persian tale" in his epic was merely a euphemism for realities that were permissible to discuss without censorship. Scholars continually debate why and for whom Rustaveli referenced "this Persian tale." It is abundantly clear that just as the epic is not based on any actual Persian story, Qutlu Arslan's political program likely contained no actual Persian custom. Their origins lie solely in the development of the Georgian social struggle. This term was merely coined by the authorities to discredit the Karavi group—a term repeated by the chronicler and subtly alluded to by Rustaveli;

What became of the Georgian Montesquieu of his time?
Shrouded in mystery, Qutlu subsequently vanishes from historical sources. His political-philosophical idea of the separation of powers aligns perfectly with the modern republican system and the principles of a state governed by the rule of law. We Georgians simply need to return to our own past and recognize that democracy and republican ideas are not foreign to us; we may be among the very first who not only conceptualized them but actively attempted to implement them;